← All Phrases

“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before the tribunal is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court
241
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT
392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.
81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

Dheeraj Thakran, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2761/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dheeraj Thakran, Vs Ito, C/O Nagesh Bhel & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), 21/25, Moti Nagar, Hsiidc Building, New Delhi. Udyog Vihar-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aewpt8543B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 24Section 80C

dismissed the appeal filed by the assesseee. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That CIT (A) erred in upholding the additions of Rs.50,40.000 made by the AO on account of cash deposited

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Sucon India Ltd, Faridabad

ITA 4418/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. H.K.Choudhary, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &
Section 14ASection 2Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 73

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is deleted.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 5. The learned DR strongly challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer

Rakesh Bansal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-34(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2559/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2015-16 Rakesh Bansal, Vs Acit, 403, Swastik Apartments, Plot Circle-34(1), No.2, Sec.09, New Delhi. Rohini, New Delhi. Pan: Aaipb2567R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca & Shri J.B. Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 26.11.2018 Of The Cit(A)-12, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.4,22,00,498/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 & 69C Of The It Act, 1961. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th January, 2016 Declaring Net Taxable Income At Rs.87,16,680/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Has Derived Income From House Property, Salary Income As Director In Different Companies & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Is Also A Partner In M/S High Seas Trading Corporation. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Claimed An Exemption Of Rs.4,11,45,660/- U/S 10(38) Of The It Act On Account Of Long-Term Capital Gain By Way Of Trading In The Scrips Of Icvl Chemicals Limited. From The Various Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Entered Into The Following Transactions:-

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. DR
Section 09Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

passed by him, sustained the additions made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to page 2 of the order

M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 189/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

initiated, thereby, directing the Ld. AO to conduct full and proper enquiry. 4 Surjeet Auto Agency 7. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the action of Ld. Pr. CIT of assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Learned senior counsel for the assessee apart from referring

Shri Krishna Mohan Chuorsiya, Rajgarh vs. The Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 626/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

aside to ld. AO with necessary direction as mentioned in the impugned order. 4. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the assumption of jurisdiction of Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act and setting aside the assessment order and directing the Assessing Officer to examine

Sarita Bagdi, Indore vs. The ITO Ward-4(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

into sham transaction just in order to take benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions contending that both the transactions of purchase and sales ... Assessing Officer to accept the claim of the assessee of Rs.34,65,171/ - as capital gains. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, but did not succeed. 3. Mr. Manav Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order by placing reliance upon the reasoning

Smt. Mamta Nyati Dhamnod Distt. Dhar, Dhamnod vs. ITO Dhar, Dhar

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

ITA 488/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133A

test of human probability and thus the addition has rightly been made by the Ld. A.O. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions placed on record which are reproduced below:- Chronology of the Transaction

Prakash Javia, Indore vs. ACIT-4(1), Indore

ITA 466/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Prakash Javia Huf, Ito-5(1) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aahhp3362H Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Jayesh Kumar Javia, Huf, Ito-1(2) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aadhj5797C Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Prakash Javia, Acit-4(1) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Abppp2848H

Section 143(3)Section 68

part of his finding appearing in para 4 of the impugned order at pages 11 to 15. 10. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the detailed submission running from pages 1 to 27 placed on record. Reference made

Jayesh Kumar Javia HUF, Indore vs. The ITO 1(2) Indore, Indore

ITA 465/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Prakash Javia Huf, Ito-5(1) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aahhp3362H Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Jayesh Kumar Javia, Huf, Ito-1(2) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aadhj5797C Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Prakash Javia, Acit-4(1) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Abppp2848H

Section 143(3)Section 68

part of his finding appearing in para 4 of the impugned order at pages 11 to 15. 10. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the detailed submission running from pages 1 to 27 placed on record. Reference made

Prakash Javia HUF, Indore vs. ITO 5(1), Indore

ITA 464/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Prakash Javia Huf, Ito-5(1) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aahhp3362H Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Jayesh Kumar Javia, Huf, Ito-1(2) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aadhj5797C Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Prakash Javia, Acit-4(1) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Abppp2848H

Section 143(3)Section 68

part of his finding appearing in para 4 of the impugned order at pages 11 to 15. 10. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the detailed submission running from pages 1 to 27 placed on record. Reference made

Ritu Mittal, Burhanpur vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

In the result, all grounds raised by the assessee(s) are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee in ITANo

ITA 435/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

that assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG to claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions running from pages 1 to 16 filed during the course

Neelam Mittal, Burhanpur vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

In the result, all grounds raised by the assessee(s) are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee in ITANo

ITA 434/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

that assessee is indulged in arranging bogus LTCG to claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions running from pages 1 to 16 filed during the course

Smt. Manisha Agrawal, Indore vs. The ITO-4 (3), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 410/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 68

which failed to stand the test of human probability. He accordingly confirmed the finding of Ld. A.O. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee made detailed arguments referring to the paper book and written submission running from page

Shri Hakimuddin Khambati, Indore vs. ITO-4(4) Range-4, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 288/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 68

which failed to stand the test of human probability. He accordingly confirmed the finding of Ld. A.O. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee made detailed arguments referring to the paper book and written submission running from page

Smt. Shweta Agrawal, Indore vs. The ACIT 5(1), R-5, Indore

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

ITA 281/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

transaction which could not stand the test of human probability. Smt. Shweta Agrawal & Anr ITA No.281 & 279/Ind/2019 7. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the detailed synopsis placed at page 527 to 573 of the paper book which forms

M/S. Sanjay Onkarmal Agrawal HUF, Indore vs. The ITO-5(3) Range-5, Indore

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

ITA 279/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

transaction which could not stand the test of human probability. Smt. Shweta Agrawal & Anr ITA No.281 & 279/Ind/2019 7. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the detailed synopsis placed at page 527 to 573 of the paper book which forms

Kumari Ayushi Nyati, Indore vs. ITO-5(5), Indore

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

ITA 203/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133A

test of human probability and thus the addition has rightly been made by the Ld. A.O. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions placed on record which are reproduced below:- Chronology of the Transaction

Shri Manoj Yadav, Indore vs. ACIT5(1), Indore

ITA 149/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Manoj Yadav Acit Circle 5(1) Gf-Shekhar Residency Indore बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Flat No.204, Vs. Sch, No.54 Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aagpy5452J

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

further held the transaction as “sham” as it cannot stand the test of human probability. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. counsel for the assessee filed written submissions dated 12th April 2021 running from pages 1 to 27 which also referred to various judgments

Manish Kumar Radheshyam Nyati, Dhar vs. ITO, Dhar

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

ITA 705/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133A

test of human probability and thus the addition has rightly been made by the Ld. A.O. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions placed on record which are reproduced below:- Chronology of the Transaction

Vijay Radheshyam Nyati HUF, Dhar vs. ITO, Dhar

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

ITA 704/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133A

test of human probability and thus the addition has rightly been made by the Ld. A.O. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions placed on record which are reproduced below:- Chronology of the Transaction